Bag-ayan, Voltaire S.

Pasion, Kevin Christian A.

Salazar, Gesthil M.
Villaroman, Carlota N.
1. Legal Problem or Case
Involving a Foreign
Element
2. Determination of Whether
the Law or Judgments of
Other State/s will Govern.
IF SO, the extent of its
recognition/application in
the forum.
JURISDICITON: Where can or
should the litigation be initiated?
CHOICE OF LAW: Which law will
the court apply?
RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT:
Where can the resulting judgment
be enforced?
 As a phase in Conflicts Resolution, it
concerns the authority of a court of law to
take cognizance of a case.
 It answer the question of:
 WHERE CAN OR SHOULD LITIGATION BE
INITIATED? (Hasegawa v. Kitamura, G.R. No. 149177,
November 23, 2007)
 As a phase in Conflicts Resolution, it
concerns the authority of a court of law to
take cognizance of a case.
 It answer the question of:
 WHERE CAN OR SHOULD LITIGATION BE
INITIATED? (Hasegawa v. Kitamura, G.R. No. 149177,
November 23, 2007)
 KINDSOF JURISDICTION:
1. Legislative Jurisdiction
• Small vs. US
2. Judicial Jurisdiction
a. Jurisdiction over the PERSON
b. Jurisdiction over the SUBJECT MATTER
c. Jurisdiction over the ISSUES
d. Jurisdiction over the RES
A. Jurisdiction over the PERSON
❑ Plaintiff: it is acquired from the moment he/she invokes
the aid or power of the court by instituting an action
through a proper pleading.
❑ Defendant:
1. Voluntary appearance (ROC, Rule 14, Sec. 20)
2. Coercive Process through SUMMONS. (ROC, Rule 14)

B. Jurisdiction over the SUBJECT MATTER

▪ It is conferred by law which may be either the
Constitution or a statute (City of Dumaguete v. Philippine
Ports Authority, 656 SCRA 102).
C. Jurisdiction over the ISSUES
1. It is conferred and determined by the allegations in the
pleadings of the parties.
2. Stipulation of the parties (Sec. 2, Rule 18, ROC)
3. Waiver or failure to object to the presentation of
evidence on a matter not raised in the pleadings (Sec. 5,
Rule 10, ROC)

D. Jurisdiction over the RES

1. Seizure of property under a legal process, or
2. Institution of legal proceedings wherein, under special
provisions of law, the power of the court over the
property is recognized and made effective. (Banco
Espanol-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921, 927-928)
 Hasegawa
vs.
Kitamura
(G.R. No. 149177, November 23, 2007)
 PARTIES:
 Plaintiff-Respondent: Minoru Kitamura, a Japanese national
permanently residing in the Philippines.
 Defendant-Petitioner: Hasegawa & Nippon Engineering Consultants
Co., Ltd. (Nippon), a Japanese consultancy firm

 RTC of Lipa: Dismissed the Motion to Dismiss

 CA: Dismissed the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65

 ISSUE:
 Whether the subject matter jurisdiction of Philippine courts in civil
cases for specific performance and damages involving contracts
executed outside the country by foreign nationals may be assailed on
the principles of Lex loci celebrationis, Lex contractus, The "state
of the most significant relationship rule," or Forum non
conveniens.
 Jurisdiction v. Choice of Law
 Jurisdiction: Considers whether it is fair to cause a
defendant to travel to this state
 Choice of Law: Asks the further question whether the
application of a substantive law which will determine
the merits of the case is fair to both parties.

 The power to exercise jurisdiction does not automatically

give a state constitutional authority to apply forum law.
The question of whether the law of a state can be applied
to a transaction is different from the question of whether
the courts of that state have jurisdiction to enter a
judgment.
 Jurisdiction over SUBJECT MATTER
 To succeed in its motion for the dismissal of an action
for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
claim, the movant must show that the court or tribunal
cannot act on the matter submitted to it because no law
grants it the power to adjudicate the claims.

 Principles of Conflict of Law

i. Lex loci celebrationis,
ii. Lex contractus,
iii. The "state of the most significant relationship” rule
STEPS IN DEALING WITH A PROBLEM IN
CONFLICTS OF LAWS:
1. Determine whether the court has jurisdiction over
the case.
❑ No Jurisdiction/ Refusal of Court: DISMISS
❑ With Jurisdiction, the court may:
a. Refuse to assume jurisdiction on the
ground of Forum Shopping; or
b. Assume Jurisdiction, Apply either:
i. Internal Law of the Forum (Lex Fori)
ii. Proper Foreign Law (Lex Causae)
 There are instances, however, when this is
not the case, as when the parties stipulate a
foreign law to govern their relationship.
Parties are free to stipulate their choice of
law that will govern their relationship.
Choice of Law
 When parties enter into an agreement, their
relationship is usually governed by a
particular law. The default law is almost
always the local law since the minds of the
parties are set on the local law upon
entering into the agreement. This is
especially trues in cases where there is no
foreign element involved.
 1.A court, subject to constitutional
restrictions, will follow a statutory directive
of it’s own state on choice of law.

 2.When there is no such directive, the

factors relevant to the choice of the
applicable rule of law include ,
 A.the needs of the insterstate and
international systems,

 B. the relevant policies of the forum,

 C.the relevant policies of other interested

states and the relative interests of those
states in the determination of the particular
issue.
 D. the protection of justified expectations,

 E. the basic policies underlying the particular

field of law,

 F.certainty, predictability and uniformity of

result, and

 G. ease in the determination and application

of the law applied.
 This principle looks to the statutory directive
of the state on choice of law.
 This is the GENERAL RULE and it provides
the local law to be the default law that will
govern the relationship of the parties to the
dispute.
 Examples:
 Article 15 of the Civil Code
 Article 16 of the Civil Code

 RENVOI DOCTRINE
 Aznar vs. Garcia
 Technological advances and free trade have brought about
numerous international commercial transactions spawning
disputes that cut across borders.
 Application of only local laws that favor the interest of the
forum state will unduly stifle the growth of free trade and
discourage people from trading with their counterparts in
other countries.
 REMEDY: Formulate principles and reconcile multistate
laws with the end in view of encouraging international
trade among people.
 The policies of the forum take primordial
consideration when considering the applicable law.
 Each forum considers certain values to be of the
highest import to them.
 For example:
 In the Philippines, courts consider protection for
labor to be of highest import.

 Cadalin et. Al. vs. POEA Administrator

 In governmental interest analysis, courts compare the
laws and interests of two states, determine if there is
real conflict, and if a real conflict exists, apply the
law of the state whose interest is more impaired.
 Commercial transactions involve people located in
several jurisdictions which have conflicting interests
in a transaction.

 Kearney vs. Salomon Smith Barney

 Partiesenter into contracts or into legal
relations with the objective of achieving a
desired result. Parties would usually specify
a particular law to govern their relationship
with each other .

 When the parties specify a particular law to

govern their legal relations, courts must
enforce this choice of law, unless it is
contrary to a statutory directive of the forum
court, or contravenes public policy.
 Parties
are free to stipulate the terms and
conditions of their agreement, which terms
and conditions become part of the law of the
contract.
 Thissimply means that the reason and
objectives of the laws in question should be
given consideration, Hence, courts should
look to the type of law involved.
 Mostjudicial systems favor stability in
judicial decisions that is why they have
formulated principles like res judicata and
stare decisis,

 The rationale behind this is to provide

stability in judicial decisions so judges will
stick to their functions of interpreting the
laws instead of setting policies.
 Simplicity is always a virtue in determining
which law to apply. If a court is bound by a
particular doctrine by virtue of stare decisis,
it is usually simpler for the court to apply the
same doctrine in future cases. There is no
more need to adopts new and more
complicated analyses for what only needs to
be done is to apply the law which has been
applied before.
Saudi Arabian Airlines
vs.
CA
GR. No 122191
 Note that one or more circumstances may be
present to serve as the possible test for the
determination of the applicable law. These
“test factors” or “points of contact” or
“connecting factors” could be any of the
following
 Asto the choice of applicable law, we note
that choice-of-law problems seek to answer
two important questions.

 1. What legal system should control a given

situation where some of the significant facts
occurred in two or more states; and

 2. to what extent should be the chosen legal

system regulate the situation.
 1.The nationality of a person, his domicile.
His residence, his place of sojourn, or his
origin;

 2.
the seat of a legal or juridical person,
such as a corporation;

 3.the situs of a thing, that is , the place

where a thing is, or is a deemed to be
situated. In particular, the lex situs is
decisive when real rights are involved.
 4.the place where an act has been done, the
locus actus, such as the place where a
contract has been made, a marriage
celebrated, a will signed or a tort
committed. The lex actus is particularly
important in contracts and torts.
 5.the place where an act is intended to
come into effect, e.g. the place of
performance of contractual duties, or the
place where a power of attorney is to be
exercised.

 6.the intention of the contracting parties as

to the law that should govern their
agreement, the lex loci intentionis;
 7.the place where judicial or administrative
proceedings are instituted or done. The lex
fori- the law of the forum – is particularly
important because , as we have seen earlier,
matters of “procedure” not going to the
substance of the claim involved are governed
by it; and because the lex fori applies
whenever the content of the otherwise
applicable foreign law is excluded from
application in a given case for the reason
that it falls under one of the exceptions to
the applications of foreign law; and
 8.the flag of a ship , which in many cases is
decisive of practically all legal relationships
of the ship and of its master or owner as
such. It also covers contractual relationships
particularly contracts of affreightment.
 Prescinding from this premise that the
Philippines is the situs of the tort complained
of and the palce “having the most interest
in the problem”. We find, by way of
recapitulation, that the Philippines law on
tort liability should have paramount
application to and control in the resolution
of the legal issues arising out of this case.
Principle of Forum
Non Conveniens
 Forum non conveniens, like the rules of
forum shopping, litis pendentia, and res
judicata, is a means of addressing the
problem of parallel litigation.
 Forum non conveniens is grounded on
principles of comity and judicial
efficiency.
 “A court, in conflicts of law cases, may
refuse impositions on its jurisdiction
where it is not the most 'convenient' or
available forum and the parties are not
precluded from seeking remedies
elsewhere."
 The belief that the matter can be better tried and
decided elsewhere, either because the main aspects of
the case transpired in a foreign jurisdiction or the
material witnesses have their residence there;
 The belief that the non-resident plaintiff sought the
forum MERELY TO SECURE procedural advantages or to
CONVEY OR HARASS the defendant;
 The UNWILLINGNESS to extend local judicial facilities to
non residents or aliens when the docket may already be
overcrowded;
 The INADEQUACY of the local judicial machinery for
effectuating the right sought to be maintained; and
 The DIFFICULTY of ascertaining foreign law.
 (1) that the Philippine Court is one to
which the parties may conveniently
resort to;
 (2) that the Philippine Court is in a
position to make an intelligent
decision as to the law and the facts;
 (3) that the Philippine Court has or is
likely to have power to enforce its
decision."
Neither the mere invocation
of forum non conveniens
NOR the averment of foreign
elements operates to
automatically divest a court
of jurisdiction.
 Forum non conveniens relates to
FORUM, not to the choice of
governing law. That forum non
conveniens may ultimately
result in the application of
foreign law is merely an incident
of its application.
 1. the availability and adequacy of
recourse to a foreign tribunal
 2. the question of where, as between
the forum court and a foreign court,
the balance of interests inhering in a
dispute weighs more heavily
 the vinculum which the parties and their relation have
to a given jurisdiction;
 the public interest that must animate a tribunal, in its
capacity as an agent of the sovereign, in choosing to
assume or decline jurisdiction.
Comity and International Community:
Foreign Judgments are recognized and
allowed to be enforced in our jurisdiction
as a matter of comity with the
international community.

Credit to Foreign Courts: We give full

faith and credit to judgments of foreign
courts so long as they are not violative of
our laws.
No Statute expressly provides for the process of enforcing
foreign judgments

However, it is considered by jurisprudence that Rule 39,

Section 48 governs the enforcement and effects of foreign
judgments:
•Section 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders. — The effect of a
judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having
jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order is as follows:
•In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the judgment
or final order, is conclusive upon the title to the thing, and
•In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or
final order is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties
and their successors in interest by a subsequent title.
•In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence
of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or
clear mistake of law or fact
Action in The foreign judgment is deemed conclusive upon
Rem the title to the thing

The foreign judgment is merely ‘presumptive, and

Action in not conclusive, of a right as between the parties
Personam and their successors in interest by a subsequent
title
Subject Matter Jurisdiction : Regional Trial Court

Prescription: 10 years from the time the right the of action accrues

Proof of Foreign Law: Rule 132 Section 24 and the Doctrine of Processual Presumption

Issues to be Litigated: Proof of Judgment and Defenses External to its Merits

Defenses: Rule 39 Section 48 par. 2

Other Factors: Principle of Forum Non-Conveniens and Reciprocity

Enforceable Orders: Any type of remedy ordered by a foreign court

Execution: The procedures for recognition and enforcement are generally indistinguishable
and accomplished in one proceeding. Hence, the normal procedure will be followed
 Petitioner alleges that jurisdiction over Case No. C21-00265, which
involved partnership interest, was vested in the Securities and
Exchange Commission, not in the Superior Court of California, County
of Contra Costa.

 The Supreme Court disagreed with his contention. In the absence of

proof of California law on the jurisdiction of courts, we presume that
such law, if any, is similar to Philippine law. We base this conclusion on
the presumption of identity or similarity, also known as processual
presumption. The Complaint, which respondent filed with the trial
court, was for the enforcement of a foreign judgment. He alleged
therein that the action of the foreign court was for the collection of a
sum of money, breach of promissory notes, and damages.

 The case also discussed the principle of non-forum conveniens which

was promptly rejected by the Court reasoning that the practical
reasons for refusing to entertain a foreign judgment were not present
in the action.